logo
What to know about the Meta trial as judge weighs decision

What to know about the Meta trial as judge weighs decision

Yahoo3 days ago

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Meta have wrapped up a six-week trial over the Facebook and Instagram parent's alleged social networking monopoly, leaving the final decision in the hands of the judge.
The trial, which came to a close last week, seeks to determine whether Meta has a monopoly over personal social networking that the company entrenched with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Here's what to know about the trial and what comes next:
The FTC's trial with Meta represented a full-circle moment for the second Trump administration, after the agency originally brought the case at the tail end of President Trump's first administration.
The agency sued Meta, then known as Facebook, in December 2020. The case came as part of a push by the Trump administration to take aim at major tech firms, following the Department of Justice's (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit against Google.
Big Tech scrutiny has been an area of rare continuity between both Trump administrations and the Biden administration.
Under former President Biden, the DOJ brought a second antitrust case against Google, as well as a lawsuit against Apple. The FTC also sued Amazon.
While Trump's firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners has raised questions about his commitment to aggressive antitrust enforcement, the agency notably did not step away from the Meta trial in the face of CEO Mark Zuckerberg's lobbying for a settlement.
The Meta CEO reportedly courted Trump and White House officials to settle the case in the weeks leading up to the trial.
Zuckerberg, who had a contentious relationship with the president in the wake of Meta's decision to ban Trump from its platforms following the Jan. 6 riots, seemed eager to mend fences after November's election.
Like numerous other tech leaders, Zuckerberg traveled to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., to visit Trump before he took office, contributed $1 million to his inaugural fund and received a front-row seat at his inauguration.
However, these efforts don't appear to have paid dividends. The Meta CEO's initial offer of $450 million was brushed aside, with the FTC demanding at least $18 billion and a consent decree, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zuckerberg reportedly upped his offer to $1 billion, but to no avail. The Meta trial began mid-April, and the FTC immediately called Zuckerberg to the stand, where he spent three days facing questions.
At the heart of the trial is the FTC's claim that Meta has a monopoly over personal social networking — a market that includes Meta's apps, Snapchat and MeWe and is centered on sharing between family and friends.
Meta has pushed back on this market definition, arguing it faces competition from a much broader swath of social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, X and iMessage.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has seemed skeptical of the FTC's proposed market, noted Geoffrey Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics.
'The judge has expressed some reservations about the way the FTC is trying to demonstrate its market definition, but obviously the underlying issue is monopoly power,' Manne told The Hill.
'It's a really tough case in this regard because … there seems to be no qualitative evidence that's really going to answer the question,' he added.
Boasberg's concerns about the market have been a 'recurring theme' in his comments going back to November, when he refused to dismiss the case, said former FTC Commissioner William Kovacic.
'He nonetheless cautioned that the government had important hurdles to clear, and one of them was the relevant market,' Kovacic said.
'It's always a little bit risky to infer a specific point of view from questions that are posed or comments that are made in the courtroom, but it seems to me that the judge still has doubts about the delineation of the relevant market, and the FTC has to defend its definition or the case founders,' he continued.
Because most social media platforms are free, it's not possible to identify Meta's competitors using price data, as antitrust cases often do, Manne noted.
Instead, the FTC and Meta have had to rely on other forms of evidence to back up their claims. The government has used advertising load, contending Meta has placed more advertisements on Instagram than it would otherwise, degrading the user experience.
Meta, on the other hand, has relied on user data, showing that users move between TikTok and Meta's platforms interchangeably. For instance, the company pointed to data finding that when TikTok briefly went dark in January, it drove users to Facebook and Instagram.
'After six weeks trying their case to undo acquisitions made over a decade ago and show that no deal is ever truly final, the only thing the FTC showed was the dynamic, hyper-competitive nature of the past, present and future of the technology industry,' a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.
'Meta is a proud American success story, and we look forward to continuing to innovate and serve the people and businesses who love our services,' they continued.
The FTC has accused Meta of violating antitrust law by attempting to eliminate potential competitors with two key acquisitions — its purchases of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.
The focus on Meta's acquisitions creates a real risk for the social media giant that a loss could result in a breakup.
However, the FTC may also be facing an uphill battle as it tries to prove the Instagram and WhatsApp purchases were anticompetitive, blocking the two once independent companies from developing into Facebook competitors.
This results in a 'highly speculative world' that relies heavily on Meta's intent at the time, Manne said.
'You have an entity like Instagram that may or may not have been in any way successful, that may or may not have evolved in a way to actually be a challenge to Facebook, that may or may not have evolved in any way to become bigger than it was when Facebook bought it,' he told The Hill.
'It's never going to be dispositive, and I guess I'm afraid, from the FTC perspective, that they don't have a lot more than that,' he added.
The FTC has presented numerous emails and messages from Meta executives, including Zuckerberg, suggesting they had real concerns about Instagram and WhatsApp becoming threats to Facebook prior to the acquisition.
'I thought The FTC did a good job of … reconstructing Facebook's state of mind when the mergers took place, and I think they did a good job of underscoring Meta's anxiety that the transactions were necessary in order to forestall the emergence of competitive rivals,' Kovacic said.
'Yet, even so, it seemed to me that the real core issue in the case is not so much what Meta has perceived at the time, but rather the actual consequence of the mergers as they unfold throughout the decade,' he added.
The trial has wrapped, but the two sides have a post-trial briefing schedule that stretches into September, meaning any decision is unlikely before the fall.
If the judge rules against Meta, the case would progress to a second phase to determine the proper remedies.
Google, which was found last August to have an illegal monopoly over online search, overlapped with Meta at the Washington courthouse in April and May, where it appeared for a three-week remedies hearing.
The search giant is seeking to keep its company together as the DOJ pushes for a breakup that would split off its Chrome browser.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

UPI

time4 minutes ago

  • UPI

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."

Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.

Politico

time7 minutes ago

  • Politico

Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.

President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store